IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/64764.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In sickness but not in wealth: field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain

Author

Listed:
  • Galizzi, Matteo M.
  • Miraldo, Marisa
  • Stavropoulou, Charitini

Abstract

We present results from a hypothetical framed field experiment assessing whether risk preferences significantly differ across the health and financial domains when they are elicited through the same multiple price list paired-lottery method. We consider a sample of 300 patients attending outpatient clinics in a university hospital in Athens, during the Greek financial crisis. Risk preferences in finance are elicited using paired-lottery questions with hypothetical payments. The questions are adapted to the health domain by framing the lotteries as risky treatments in hypothetical healthcare scenarios. Using Maximum Likelihood methods, we estimate the degree of risk aversion, allowing for the estimates to be dependent on domain and individual characteristics. The subjects in our sample, who were exposed to both health and financial distress, tend to be less risk averse in the financial than in the health domain.

Suggested Citation

  • Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini, 2016. "In sickness but not in wealth: field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64764, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:64764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64764/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    2. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    3. Izabela Jelovac & Philippe Polomé, 2017. "Incentives to patients versus incentives to health care providers: The users' perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 319-331, December.
    4. Martina Björkman Nyqvist & Lucia Corno & Damien de Walque & Jakob Svensson, 2022. "HIV, risk, and time preferences: Evidence from a general population sample in Lesotho," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 904-911, May.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    7. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    8. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    9. Castro, M.F.; & Guccio, C.; & Romeo, D.;, 2022. "An assessment of physicians’ risk attitudes using laboratory and field data," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/26, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Fredslund, Eskild Klausen & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2018. "Different domains – Different time preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 97-105.
    12. Afschin Gandjour, 2022. "Financial Incentives in the Path to Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 5-8, January.
    13. Stolk-Vos, Aline C. & Attema, Arthur E. & Manzulli, Michele & van de Klundert, Joris J., 2022. "Do patients and other stakeholders value health service quality equally? A prospect theory based choice experiment in cataract care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    14. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole, 2020. "Risk aversion and HIV/AIDS: Evidence from Senegalese female sex workers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    15. Biroli, Pietro & Bosworth, Steven J. & Della Giusta, Marina & Di Girolamo, Amalia & Jaworska, Sylvia & Vollen, Jeremy, 2020. "Framing the Predicted Impacts of COVID-19 Prophylactic Measures in Terms of Lives Saved Rather Than Deaths Is More Effective for Older People," IZA Discussion Papers 13753, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    behavioral experiments in health; field experiments; risk aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:64764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.